property; thirdly, that there is no pauperism, for the exchange of labour is unartificial.

The last great principle which we shall notice is the subordination of the regal and executive power to the judicial in matters of peace and war-that is to say, in the judicial matters affecting the State as a State. Hence has arisen a sense of honour in regard to transactions with foreign powers, at once discountenancing projects of acquisition, and encouraging throughout the nation a spirit of resistance to foreign violence. It is to this division of authority that is ultimately to be attributed the fact, that the most aggressive position in the world the Dardanelles, is at present condered as a point to be guarded, not as one to be guarded against.

Now, if we turn to the antagonist of Turkey, we will not find analogous subjects of study, or grounds of sympathy. There is enthroned a system of intolerance and persecution, of restriction and prohibition, of complication of laws without liberty in their enactment, of complication of functions, and multiplicity of functionaries, of concentration of all power in the hands of the Chief of the State, and the extinction of religion, both by its conversion into an instrument of statecraft, and by the attributes conferred upon the Czar.

There remains absolutely but one branch in which we have anything to learn from Russia, and that is diplomacy; but this study is imposed solely in consequence of the use which she makes of that art against ourselves.

But Turkey is not merely remarkable in maxims,—she is so also in events. A. quarter of a century ago she had nearly fallen to the ground, not less by internal decay than by external violence; not merely had her Christian populations risen in arms, but her Mussulman subjects had denied their allegiance. The whole of the great organisations of the State were simultaneously in revolt-namely, the regular force, or Janissaries; the great feudatories, or Déré Beys; the irregular feudal militia, or Spahis; while the viceroys of the extreme provinces of the west, the east, and the south, were preparing to erect for themselves independent sovereignties. The Executive power entered simultaneously on a contest with all these bodies, and on a war with Russia. The result is that its authority has been restored from one

extremity of the Empire to the other; that each of these organisations has been swept away, even to the very name; that an absolute dependence and subordination of administrative authority has been instituted; that a disciplined army under the direct orders of the State, amounting to 300,000 or 400,000 men, has been created; that the revenue of the Treasury has been increased threefold, and the commerce of the Empire fourfold. It deserves also to be noted, that in the course of this change two tides of convulsion had swept over Europe, once in 1830 and once in 1848, and that neither Russia nor Turkey were, in any degree, shaken by these events, or in any degree conscious of their passage-further evidence of the permanency of these societies, or of their fortunes resting upon foundations not assailable by the fluctuations of opinion, which periodically submerge the powerful and intellectual Empires of the West.

It is in anticipation of the debate in the House of Lords this night, that we offer these reflections, as possibly they may strike, in those who may take part in it, a nobler chord than those which have given forth on similar occasions their wiry discords. Yes, Senators of England, it is into a great presence that you are about to rush, whether it be that of the Turk and his dignity, or the Russian and his genius. See that you disgrace not by unseemly words and unworthy thoughts the name that you bear, and the land that you ought to adorn and to protect.

DENMARK AND THE "TIMES."

August 13th.

The Russian organ of Printing-house-square. yesterday returned to its Danish vomit, and drubbed its readers with a daring rechauffé of its old and exposed falsifications. Our readers were made acquainted at the time, by our correspondent at Copenhagen, with the coup d'état of the 19th of July. That catastrophe was the flagrant exposure of the Treaty of the 8th of May, 1852-a Treaty which the Danish Minister required the Diet to accept as a European necessity;" and, because of the Diet's refusal to accept it in an

unconditional manner, the Constitution has been violated, in fact and deed, by four reiterated dissolutions. The Times, in the course of these operations, by a calculation which we traced day by day, suppressed-in as far as depended on it, and, in so far as it could not suppress, falsified-the facts for the British public. It played its part in Denmark by threatening and bullying the Diet into the acceptance of the Treaty. It condescended to implore their submission in the interests of the preservation of the Constitution-a Constitution which it then extolled as a "successful result" of the events of 1848. When the coup d'état took place, it announced that no coup d'état had occurred, and it described, on July 30th, the Royal measure as "a constitutional way of modifying an impossible constitution." It now announces the Royal project as a great provident and beneficial act, admitting, nevertheless, that it is a "self-denying ordinance, which undoubtedly curtails," &c. In the earlier stage of the proceedings it gave the people of Denmark to understand that Russia was the Power anxious to abolish their liberties, and that its own deep interest in the question, and the advice to submit to the Treaty, were founded upon its anxiety to thwart Russian projects. Now, it boldly asserts that Russia has had no hand in the matter, but on the contrary, the Russian Minister at Copenhagen has taken every means in his power to express his disapproval of the Ministerial scheme." Who but the Times was acting at Copenhagen ? All hail to the diplomacy of Printing-house-square! It has beaten off the Czar from the Sound; while that of Downing Street, with its fleets and its "Talents," has been surrendering the Dardanelles.

It goes on to say,-" Similar misconceptions appear to have arisen with reference to the Danish succession.' "Ay, there's the rub," said the Prince of Denmark-not that new "Prince of Denmark" of the play-bill of the Times of yesterday, but that pallid detector of treason, and punisher of crime, who communed with gravediggers, and moralised on a skull" Ay, there's the rub," British journalist and Russian tool, deceiver of confidence, suborner, false witness -who uses the faculty of vending type doubly, to sell him who buys your news as foreign, and him who trusts your words as British! Now, after you have consummated your work, and performed your task-not a gratuitous one, for

the honour of knavery, be it hoped-after you have extinguished Denmark; for you have the honour of the workafter all Europe has detected the imposition, and though, alas! too late, the consequences-you dare to proclaim that Russia has "formally sacrificed her own eventual rights," and you have the face to warn the Ministers of Denmark that by "throwing themselves under the influence of Russia" they will forfeit the confidence of the nation,"

Here is a case liable to no ambiguity. Any man of ordinary industry, by spending an hour in turning over a file of the Times, commencing from May, 1852, will see it at once. There is statement, perversion, suppression, contradiction, regularly adapted, for carrying out the views of the Russian Embassy, by misrepresenting England to Denmark, and Denmark to England, together with the constant assumption that the journal itself has undertaken to act against Russia. In what sense, then, we ask, must the Times have been acting in reference to Turkey? Then come two other questions -what rewards has the Times received from Russia? What does it deserve at the hands of England?

THE RELATIVE POWER OF RUSSIA AND GREAT BRITAIN.

August 13th.

SIR,-Providence in granting to man but a limited supply of reason, has guarded against the dangers thence accruing to societies by implanting a compensating instinct of honour; it may be indeed a question of war with Russia whether the attribute of the lower order of animals does not assume the precedence even in matters the most humane and practical. To designate an individual a man of honour, would not convey the idea of dexterous management, or successful fortunes; but when you have said "honourable nation," you have implied talents to acquire, courage to defend, virtue to enjoy. On the other hand, " dishonourable nation" implies resources squandered, and degrading crimes.

These reflections are suggested by the debate in the Lords of last night. It has also brought to my recollection 'some incidents of the past, and particularly one in which the

Member of an Assembly of a State somewhat similarly affected with our own, addressed it in these words :-"The necessity of freemen has long impended over you the necessity of slaves may you never know; the necessity of slaves is stripes, that of freemen is honour."

Instinct is, doubtless, no less than reason-a process of ratiocination; but the distinction, like that between mesmeric and natural action, rests on a supercession of the use of the senses, or the results obtained by them. Thus, the rationalist politician would require, in order to form a judgment of the present negotiations with the Emperor of Russia, to master a library of useful information, requiring six months for its perusal-even if it were collected. Having neither the time nor the materials, he is reduced to a conscientious nullity, or becomes a loquacious sentimentalist. For the honourable man, it is enough that he should be indignant; he requires no statistics, and thus instinct is safety. Such valour may, indeed, deserve at times the character of Quixotic, but that is when honour is weak, and insolence mighty.

It

In the debate of last night, the background of the picture was war, and, doubtless, it is the dread of war, whether conscientiously entertained or perfidiously suggested, that has placed England and Europe in their present ludicrous and humiliating position, and to this point I intend to address myself in this letter. I confess that it is painful to do so, but I make the sacrifice. It is so upon more grounds than one. It is an equal crime not to make war when just and necessary, and to make it without cause and necessity. is not in your option to make it or not, if it be a just war, for the injustice is the act of others; but if you are known to be ready to submit through fear of consequences, those consequences which you seek to avoid will most assuredly fall upon you; if, on the other hand, you are known to be possessed of spirit, that alone will guard you better than fleets and armies. There is, in the present generation, no danger, save that which is based on a calculation of your cowardice. Peace as an end, but justice as a means. Peace as a means, is war as an end ?-a war following degradation.

Now, let us take the case of a war with Russia. Will it be aggressive or defensive? Will she attack you, or will you attack her? On what element, on what field will the conflict take place?-what forces will have to be employed ?—what